CHAPTER XLIXA.
Chovevé Zion and Zionists in England—Louis Loewe—Nathan Marcus Adler—Albert Löwy—Abraham Benisch—The Rev. M. J. Raphall—Dr. M. Gaster—Rabbi Samuel Mohilewer—English representation at the Second and Third Congresses—The Fourth Congress in London.
The Chovevé Zion movement in England was not very powerful, yet it enjoyed a certain amount of popularity. If we examine, for instance, the records for 1892–7—the years which preceded the First Zionist Congress (Basle, 1897)—we find among the leading representatives not only the Chief Rabbi of the Spanish and Portuguese Communities, Dr. M. Gaster, Mr. Herbert Bentwich, Rabbi Professor H. Gollancz, the late Colonel Albert Goldsmid, Dr. S. A. Hirsch, Mr. S. B. Rubenstein, Mr. E. W. Rabbinowicz and other English Jews of standing, who are even now more or less active in the Zionist Organization; but we read the names of the late Chief Rabbi of Great Britain, Dr. H. Adler, the late Lord Swaythling, Mr. Elkan Adler, Albert Jessel, Mr. Joseph Prag (who was one of the most active members), Joseph Nathan, Louis Schloss, Haim Guedalla, Captain H. Lewis-Barned, Bernard Birnbaum, Mr. Herman Landau and other distinguished members of the community, as among those of the prominent enthusiastic supporters of the Chovevé Zion movement who did not join the new Zionist Organization. The same phenomenon strikes us in France. There the new Zionism was confronted on the part of the Chovevé Zion by an opposition that was even stronger than in England.
An impartial historian, desirous of reviewing the facts as they were revealed in Jewish life and literature, would in vain endeavour to discover any essential difference between the Chovevé Zion and the Zionist fundamental principles. He could trace a complete and clear conception of political Zionism through centuries of English history or Jewish history in England, and on the other hand also efforts and undertakings in the direction of colonization pursued with great energy and care by forces that are generally found to be co-operating with political Zionism. A sober and dispassionate examination of all these ideas without regard to mere catchwords must lead to the conclusion that Sir Moses Montefiore’s representations to Mehemet Ali in 1838 were substantially the same as Herzl made to Abdul Hamid in 1898. However, both aimed at a legally assured home and both insisted that Palestine should belong to the Jewish people. And no real student of contemporary Jewish history will imagine that Sir Moses was an isolated dreamer. He never undertook anything in Jewish affairs without consulting the authorities of his time. One of his advisers was Louis Loewe, the well-known Jewish scholar and his secretary for many years.
Dr. Louis Loewe (1809–88), who was educated at the Yeshibot of Lissa, Nikolsburg, Presburg, and at the University of Berlin, came to England in 1839 and was appointed by the Duke of Sussex to be his Orientalist. He then travelled in the East, where he studied languages. In Cairo he was presented to Mehemet Ali, for whom he translated some hieroglyphic inscriptions. On his return from Palestine he met at Rome Sir Moses and Lady Montefiore, who invited him to travel with them to Palestine. When, in 1840, Sir Moses went on his Damascus expedition, Loewe accompanied him as his interpreter. Since that time Loewe was attached to Sir Moses as his personal friend and secretary. He accompanied Sir Moses on nine different missions. He wrote several valuable works on oriental subjects: The Origin of the Egyptian Language, London, 1837; A Dictionary of the Circassian Language, 1859; a Nubian Grammar and several pamphlets—and translated J. B. Levinsohn’s Efes Damim (1871) and David Nieto’s Matteh Dan (1842). Dr. Loewe was an ardent supporter of all schemes in favour of Palestine and strongly assisted David Gordon, the editor of the Ha-Magid, who was an enthusiastic and outspoken political Zionist years before Herzl.
We have already mentioned to what an extent the Chief Rabbi, Dr. N. M. Adler, influenced Sir Moses’ works in Palestine. Nathan Adler was born at Hanover in 1803. He received his education at the Universities of Göttingen, Erlangen and Würzburg. Already as a youth his abilities proved him to be particularly adapted to the discharge of rabbinical functions. In 1829 he was appointed Chief Rabbi of Oldenburg; in 1830 his jurisdiction was transferred to Hanover and all its provinces. His fame spread beyond the Rhine and reached England just when the Jewish population there was in need of a spiritual leader. In 1844 the election took place for Chief Rabbi of the Ashkenazi Congregations of Great Britain and the choice fell on Dr. Adler. He was inducted into office on July 9th, 1845. His activity and influence during his lengthy career as Chief Rabbi proved a blessing and were attended with most invaluable results. His calling did not prevent him from contributing excellent literary productions, mostly in Hebrew, the principal of which is Nethino La-Ger’s commentary on the Targum of Onkelos. There is no doubt that this famous Rabbi and great Jew was in close touch with Sir Moses in all the steps the latter took for the colonizing of Palestine for a political as well as philanthropic purpose.
Many of the most important Jewish scholars arriving in England, and becoming in course of time the pride of English Jewry, were much attracted by the idea that England was the classical soil for a fruitful work in Palestine. It is worth noting that Dr. Albert Löwy belonged also to this group. He was born on the 10th of December, 1816, at Aussig in Moravia. After his barmizwah (attainment of his religious majority—the age of thirteen) he was sent to a public school at Leipzig. Later he attended the University and Polytechnic at Vienna. There he first met his lifelong friends, Moritz Steinschneider and Abraham Benisch. Löwy and his friends formed “Die Einheit,” a society whose object was to promote the welfare of the Jewish people. In order to realize this object the colonization of Palestine by the Austrian Jews was advocated. The first meeting of the new society was held in 1838, in Löwy’s room. The object, however, had to be kept secret for fear lest it would be defeated by the Government. England was regarded as the country likely to welcome the new movement, and, as an emissary of the Students’ Jewish National Society, Löwy was sent to London in 1841. Years afterwards he took a leading part in London in the foundation of a body with kindred objects, the Anglo-Jewish Association.
To the same group of noble-minded men who raised themselves to the height of a national and Zionist conception of a superior kind belonged also the afore-mentioned Abraham Benisch, one of the creators of the Anglo-Jewish Press, the author of the Jewish School and Family Bible (1851), the translator of Petahiah ben Jacob’s Travels (1856), and for many years editor of the Jewish Chronicle. If there ever was a Jewish nationalist, this important Anglo-Jewish writer was one beyond a doubt. He was a man of great abilities and learning, and rendered valuable assistance in the propaganda for and in the organization of the societies for the colonization of Palestine. In several leading articles written by him, with great tact and sagacity, he expounded—particularly in connection with the political events of 1856 and of 1861—the root principles of political Zionism.
Another remarkable Jewish scholar and pioneer of Zionism in his time was the Rev. M. J. Raphall, who was a brilliant writer and also a pioneer of the Anglo-Jewish Press. He edited the Hebrew Review and Magazine for Jewish Literature in 1837, which was resumed in 1859. Some years later he edited, together with the Rev. A. de Sola, the Voice of Jacob, which had been founded by Jacob Franklin in 1841. He afterwards settled in America and assisted there in the fifties of last century, together with some distinguished American Jews, in establishing in New York a society for the colonization of Palestine. He was later engaged in similar work in Canada. Essentially a student and a scholar, he devoted many years of his life to the propaganda of the Jewish national ideas.
It is impossible to conjure away all the facts showing, firstly, that the supposed differences between the Chovevé Zion movement and the new Zionism are mere phraseology, and, secondly, that the best representatives of Anglo-Jews were nationalist and Zionist. The refusal to accept the new Zionism on the part of some representatives of the Chovevé Zion movement for that reason can only be regarded as a temporary misunderstanding.
The new Zionism made headway in England especially through the efforts of the two organizations: the English Zionist Federation and the Ancient Order of Maccabeans.
The English Zionist Federation was formed in pursuance of a resolution passed by the Clerkenwell Conference of March, 1898, for the purpose of finding a common platform upon which Zionists of all shades of opinion could co-operate. A committee was appointed by the Conference to draw up a scheme, and that committee established the Federation. When the Federation was started it received support from eight societies, representing five towns: after six months, sixteen societies, representing nine towns, had joined: at the time of the Fourth Congress, thirty-eight societies, representing twenty-nine towns, were affiliated. This was the first stage of development prior to the London Congress of the Zionist Organization.
The appearance of English Zionist Delegates at the First Congress has already been alluded to. After the First Congress Dr. Gaster published the following letter in the Times of the 29th of August, 1897:—
“The movement aims at the solution of one of the most complex modern social problems in Europe, and the means which are to be employed towards the solution are the realization of deep-seated religious hopes and ideals. For this very reason men from all the ranks of Jewish society and all shades of Jewish religion are here united in the common, noble, lofty and humanitarian purpose—the restoration of Israel, which is, moreover, the true fulfilment of the words of our Prophets.
“It is surprising to find ... the incorrect statement that the agitation is the outcome of anti-Semitism. It existed long before this word even was coined. It prompted the Jews of Russia and Roumania many years ago to found colonies in Palestine. But this movement is felt to be inadequate to cope with the whole question. The political situation of the Jews has since made enormous strides. The number of Zionists with a definite aim before their eyes has grown rapidly. They are recruited from among the young enthusiasts on the Continent. University Professors and students, scholars and workmen are joining hands. They belong most exclusively to the orthodox and embrace the vast majority of the Jewish people. The Bible and the Prayer Book are the text, and this agitation is merely the practical commentary.... I, as an orthodox Rabbi, beg to differ radically from ... (the anti-Zionist views).... It is not here the place to enter upon dogmatic questions and I therefore refrain from discussing the ‘miracles’ that are to happen on that day when Israel is to return to the land of his fathers. God chooses human agencies to carry out His Will, and it is after it has been accomplished that we become aware of the renewing circumstances, unexpected and unlooked for, which have all contributed to bring about the result, which before would have appeared to be little short of a miracle. Whether the restoration will be accomplished by the purchase of Palestine, or by unexpected political combinations or by other peculiar circumstances, it would be idle to dogmatize about.
“One thing is certain. The whole orthodox and realistic Jewry, which does not volatilize the words of the Prophets, and does not look upon the Divine promises as so many spiritual symbols to be interpreted away according to each one’s fancy, is now assembled in spirit at the Congress and watches its deliberations with sympathy and elevated hope.”
We have already mentioned that Rabbi Mohilewer had sent his congratulations to the Congress. The contents of Rabbi Mohilewer’s expressions may be briefly noted as a supplement to Dr. Gaster’s letter. Rabbi Mohilewer wrote that as the state of his health did not permit him to travel, he sent the Congress his blessing in writing. Harmony and concord should exist among all Zionists, even if their religious views differed. The colonization of Palestine was recommended as a religious duty—religion should therefore be a leading factor in the Zionist movement. They should also bear in mind that it was a duty to construct and not to demolish, and they should preserve the honour of the rabbis, who were thoroughly patriotic as regarded the land in which they lived. For the past two thousand years, the Jews had awaited the advent of the Messiah, who would take them back to the land of their fathers. But in our country men had risen who had abandoned this hope and had eliminated it from the Prayer Book. Several of the rabbis in Western Europe had declared against the Zionist movement, and one of them had gone so far as to assert that the movement was contrary to the biblical prophecies, as the Messiah was only to be symbolized and the Jews were to remain in exile. He declared this to be wholly untrue. Their faith was that God would send a Redeemer to bring back the People to their own land, and that the Jewish people would, once again, be honoured among the nations. Zionism does not interfere with this deep belief; it is rather in harmony with it, and it prepares the way.
These two letters were a sort of profession de foi on the part of two rabbis representing different sections of traditional Jewry in England and Russia respectively.
The Second Zionist Congress at Basle, 1898, was attended much more numerously than the first one. There were over four hundred delegates, and the English Zionists had sent a larger contingent (the Haham, Dr. M. Gaster, had a Roumanian mandate; Jacob de Haas, Leopold J. Greenberg, E. W. Rabbinowicz, B. Ritter, A. Snowman, S. Claff, J. Massel, Dr. Moses Umanski, Herbert Bentwich and others). The presence of Dr. Gaster, who was one of the most energetic spirits of the Congress, was a great gain to the Movement. The English delegates adopted thoroughly English methods. They were not seen standing about in groups and knots in the passages and ante-rooms delivering impassioned speeches. The oratorical contributions of the English delegates were few, and none of them, except Dr. Gaster’s powerful address towards the close of the proceedings, took up more than a few minutes. But the English delegates worked hard in Committee and at special conferences.
At that time the number of Zionist Associations in Great Britain and Ireland had reached twenty-six (Leeds three, Glasgow, London, Liverpool and Manchester two each; Belfast, Cardiff, Cork, Dublin, Edinburgh, Exeter, Hanley, Hull, Limerick, Newcastle, Newport, Norwich, Plymouth, Portsmouth and Sunderland one each), and in France—three, out of the total number of the Associations all over the world of 913.
The Jewish Chronicle, writing about the Second Congress, remarked: “There is the remarkable point of the Congress—in strong relief with the comparative paucity of the personnel of the English representatives is the undoubted English influence that has been exerted. Indeed, the net result of the Second Basle Congress is that Zionism has made a distinct move towards England. Indeed, it would look as if events were so shaping themselves that the Mountain having refused to go to Mahomed, Mahomed is coming to the Mountain. The Bank is to be located in England, so is the Colonization Commission. This may have been the result—probably it was—of England’s supreme position among all the great Continental Nations, not only in regard to its undoubted stability politically, but also its unique position towards Jews.”
The Third Zionist Congress at Basle, 1899, was attended by a still larger number of delegates from the United Kingdom. There were: Dr. M. Gaster, Joseph Cowen, J. de Haas, Murray Rosenberg, Herbert Bentwich, L. J. Greenberg, S. Stungo, J. Massel, Rabbi Yoffey, Rabbi Dagutzky, M. L. Dight, Rabbi Wolf, and others—representing London, Leeds, Glasgow, Manchester, Liverpool, Birmingham, Belfast, Edinburgh, Sheffield, Limerick, Grimsby Associations. According to a report of Mr. L. J. Greenberg, who had already become an energetic propagandist of the new Zionism in England, the work was progressing. He referred also to the activities of Mr. Herbert Bentwich, for if it had not been for him no such organization would have existed in England. The Congress elected as members of the Colonization Committee Dr. Gaster, Mr. Murray Rosenberg and Mr. David Wolffe, and of the Propaganda Committee, Mr. L. J. Greenberg and Mr. J. de Haas.
The Fourth Zionist Congress was held in London at the Queen’s Hall, August 13–16, 1900. London had been chosen with a view to further influence British public opinion, seeing that in no country had the Zionist propaganda been received more sympathetically and intelligently by the general public. Dr. Herzl said in his inaugural address at the Fourth Congress in London, 1900:—
“I feel there is no necessity for me to justify the holding of the Congress in London. England is one of the last remaining places on earth where there is freedom from Jewish hatred. Throughout the wide world there is but one spot left in which God’s ancient people are not detested and persecuted. But, from the fact that the Jews in this glorious land enjoy full freedom and complete human rights, we must not allow ourselves to draw future conclusions. He would be a poor friend of the Jews in England, as well as of the Jews who reside in other countries, who would advise the persecuted to flee hither. Our brethren here would tremble in their shoes if their position meant the attraction to these shores of our desperate brethren in other lands. Such an immigration would mean disaster equally for the Jews here, as for those who would come here. For the latter, with their miserable bundles, would bring with them that from which they flee—I mean anti-Semitism.”
In the course of his address he uttered the following prophetic words:—
“The land of Palestine is not only the home of the highest ideas and most unhappy nation, but it is also by reason of its geographical position, of immense importance to the whole of Europe. The road of civilization and commerce leads again to Asia.”
According to the report read at this Fourth Congress by M. Oscar Marmorek “they had thirty-eight societies in England as against sixteen last year, and all these Societies had increased their membership. Thanks to the activity of the English Zionist Federation, Zionism had greatly prospered in England and had won the esteem of Christians. In Canada there was scarcely a town with a Hebrew congregation where a Zionist society did not exist.”
CHAPTER XLIXB.
England and Zionism—Sir B. Arnold in the Spectator—Cardinal Vaughan—Lord Rosebery—The Death of Herzl—David Wolffsohn—Prof. Otto Warburg—Zionism in the smaller states.
The Uganda scheme, which was due to the initiative of Joseph Chamberlain, led to an intimate acquaintance between the Zionist leader and this great English statesman. This project, as well as the El Arish expedition, which failed in consequence of technical difficulties, made Zionism not only a living factor in Judaism from an international standpoint, but also a political factor that was given consideration by one great Government, namely, that of England.
Subsequent events, instead of diminishing, have only more firmly increased Zionist confidence in the sympathy of English public opinion for Palestinian Zionism. There is hardly an appeal so eloquently written as Sir B. Arnold’s address, published in the Spectator, October, 1903: “You have a country, the inheritance of your fathers, finer, more fruitful, better situated for commerce, than many of the most celebrated places of the globe. Environed by the lovely shores of the Mediterranean, the lofty steppes of Arabia and of rocky Sinai, your country extends along the shores of the Mediterranean, crowned by the towering cedars of the Lebanon, the source of rivulets and brooks, which spread fruitfulness over shady dales. A glorious land! situated at the furthest extremity of the sea which connects three-quarters of the globe, over which the Phœnicians sent their numerous fleets to the shores of Britain, near to both the Red Sea and the Persian Gulf: the central country of the commerce between the East and the West. Every country has its peculiarity: every people their own genius. No people of the earth have lived so true to their calling from the first as you have done. The Arab has maintained his language and his original country: on the Nile, in the deserts, as far as Sinai, and beyond the Jordan, he feeds his flocks. In the elevated plains of Asia Minor the Turkoman has conquered for himself a second country, the birthplace of the Osman: but Palestine has a thin population. For centuries the battlefield between the sons of Altai and the Arabian wilderness, the inhabitants of the West and the half-nomadic Persians, none have been able to establish themselves and maintain their nationality: no nation can claim the name of Palestine. A chaotic mixture of tribes and tongues; remnants of migrations from north and south, they disturb one another in the possession of the glorious land where your fathers for so many centuries emptied the cup of joy, and so where every inch is drenched with the blood of your heroes when their bodies were buried under the ruins of Jerusalem.”
It is obvious that these and other similar appeals and encouraging statements made a deep impression upon Zionists. This gave rise to the assumption that Zionism was merely concerned with English interest. It is needless to say that such a statement is as unfounded as the one ascribing to Zionism the pursuance of any other political interest. Zionism is a cause of humanity and justice, altogether remote from any political speculation: it can help the Jews, it can be useful to any country interested in the development of the East, it can be beneficial to all the neighbouring nations. It was only the spirit of the Bible which enabled the English people to appreciate the justice and the moral equity of the endeavour to raise up in the old land a free, united, prosperous and energetic Jewish nation, attached by the closest ties of friendship to European civilization, carrying not only into the East the civilization of the West, just as in the Middle Ages their forefathers brought the torch of culture to the West—that torch of enlightenment which they have borne aloft in their journey from the East, and which has enabled them to accomplish cultural work of their own.
Cardinal Vaughan referred in 1902 most sympathetically to Zionism in the following words: “I have always taken a great interest in the Jews, they were once the chosen people. I marvel at the strength they retain amid most unfavourable conditions. I admire their industry, their domestic virtues and their mental force, and I can only wish success to a plan which promises them such great advantages.”
Lord Rosebery pointed out, in one of his speeches, that the silent campaigns of commerce are at least as decisive of the fate of nations as the noisy operations of the battlefield. Even as the spasms and convulsions of nature, though she works through them, are less important than the slow, silent, everyday forces, so history is made less by the fire and sword of the fighters than by the humble, prosaic working-classes. The Jews were aware of the fact that not by soldiers has the great British Empire been built up, but by Trading Companies: India by the East India Company, Canada by the Hudson Bay Fur Company, South Africa by Mining Companies. The East India Company was incorporated in 1600; a few years later (1607) the earliest permanent settlement of Virginia was founded. The Pilgrim Fathers—a movement somewhat similar to Zionism—began their noble work in 1620; and West Indian colonization was inaugurated with the occupation of the Barbadoes in 1625. Half to three-quarters of a century the work went apace in North America, colony after colony was added to the British Crown. Then other regions began to attract the British, and a new era dawned with the occupation of Gibraltar in 1704.
All the great achievements of British peaceful conquests encouraged the Zionist Movement with its trusts and funds. Cecil Rhodes, with only a million pounds to start with, created Rhodesia with its 750,000 square miles. The British North Borneo Company has a capital of £800,000 and dominates over 31,000 square miles. The British East African Company, which administered 200,000 square miles, began with the same amount as the Jewish Colonial Trust, namely, £250,000.
It is true that the Zionist Palestinian scheme presented other difficulties, but where was any great work undertaken which did not present difficulties? Is not the whole history of the Jews a struggle for existence amid the greatest of difficulties? The Jews in their normal condition were an agricultural people. During the centuries of depression and persecution they had to abandon their old vocation. Dispersed throughout all countries, yet fugitives from every land, the Jews, who could call no place their home, had to turn to commerce or to handicraft for a means of livelihood, and were thus able to carry about with them everywhere that kind of labour power that they knew to be realizable everywhere. Yet, inexorable necessity as it was, it was a breaking with the nation’s own self. And is the present situation without its difficulties? Let those answer who know something of the hardships, the privations, the squalor, the wretchedness amid which three-quarters of the Jewish people live throughout their lives. And, as to financial means, even under present circumstances it is necessary for the continuance of the present misery, to collect millions and millions, whereby indescribable energies are wasted—without any real help being given.
Inspired by these ideas, and with this object in view, the propaganda was continued when suddenly, in 1904, the Zionist Organization sustained the greatest loss ever experienced by any Organization. Herzl had worked too hard; his exertions, his experiences and his emotions had been such as to exhaust the strength of this strongest of physical and intellectual giants. It was too much for one human being to bear; nature was unduly taxed and he broke down. On the 3rd of July, 1904, Herzl breathed his last in the villa “Home, Sweet Home” at Reichenau, on the Semmering Mountain, south of Vienna. His memory will be cherished for ever by the Jewish people.
David Wolffsohn (1856–1914), the Zionist representative and worker, who had distinguished himself since the very beginning of the movement, succeeded Herzl. David Wolffsohn’s career was eminently that of a self-made man of the kind that old Dr. Smiles would have delighted to portray. A man of attractive and imposing appearance, of a loving disposition and mild grace, and with a real sense of Jewish humour, rare gifts of adaptability and extraordinary capacity for managing and leading forward in active work, he was a splendid type of a self-made man. But, from a Zionist point of view, he was more than that: he was Herzl’s great friend and confidant. His autobiography is given in Appendix LXXXIII.
David Wolffsohn, practically chosen by the Actions Committee and all Zionist authorities, took over the leadership of the Zionist Organization, during the interim between Herzl’s death and the Seventh Congress in 1906. He had first intended to transfer the headquarters to Berlin, but afterwards decided to give Cologne, the city of his home, the preference. He was assisted in this important and responsible work by two distinguished Zionists: Professor O. Warburg of Berlin and M. Jacobus Kann of the Hague. The activities of Professor Warburg have been described elsewhere in this volume: they tended in the direction of colonization, and were almost wholly concentrated upon this domain. M. Jacobus Kann, a member of an old and highly respected banking firm in Holland, was more interested in the financial institutions of the organization. He joined the Zionist Organization at the very beginning and has served the Zionist cause whole-heartedly and devotedly, particularly in the founding of the Jewish Colonial Trust, the Anglo-Palestine Company and all the other financial institutions. He travelled in Palestine, wrote a book (Erez Israel) dealing with his impressions, and is also active in the Zionist work in his own country.
Holland has a well-organized and active Zionist Organization, to which great impetus was given by the Eighth Congress at The Hague, 1909. M. de Liema, Professor Orenstein, Dr. Edersheim, M. Cohen, M. Pool and many others are among the prominent leaders. They take a very active part in the general organization work and in that of the Jewish National Fund, the headquarters of which at present are at The Hague. The Dutch Zionist Federation has an excellent weekly paper, Het Judischer Wachter, which has appeared regularly for several years, and contains much information concerning Zionist and Jewish matters as well as other excellent articles and contributions. It is worthy of note that Zionism in Holland has had for several years now a Zionist University Movement—with some good publications—which was started by Orenstein, Edersheim and others. Mention of Holland reminds one that a place of honour in Zionist history belongs to Belgium, and particularly to Antwerp, which has been for several years a first-class Zionist centre. Messieurs Jean Fischer, Oscar Fischer, S. Tolkowsky, Dr. Wulf, Ruben Cohn, the late Mehrlender, Grunzweig and many others, occupying important positions in the general Zionist Organization, made Zionism a living force in Belgian Jewry. M. Jean Fischer is a member of the Actions Committee and of the great financial institutions of Zionism: he and his friends have taken an important part in colonization undertakings in Palestine of which the devoted pioneer M. S. Tolkowsky is the representative at Rechoboth. M. Fischer visited Palestine and wrote a book containing his observations. Belgian Zionists had also a paper of their own, L’Esperance (Ha-Tikvah), which brought very valuable contributions and information.
In connection with Zionism the smaller countries of Central and Southern Europe, Switzerland and the Scandinavian countries also deserve special mention. Switzerland, the land of the Zionist Congresses, has a good organization, of which Dr. Camille Levy, Dr. Felix Pinkus, M. Levy are the most notable. They were always very active in propaganda, had their delegates at the Congresses and always made their regular contributions. Denmark and Sweden have now had for some years a good Zionist Organization, and, of late, are developing great activity, owing to the Zionist Office which has been established at Copenhagen. Roumania and Bulgaria are still more important as great centres of Zionist activity. Roumania was almost equal to Russia in the Chovevé Zion movement. Now, M. Pineles, M. Schein, M. Schwarzfeld, the learned and well-known Dr. Nacht and Dr. Nemirower, with many other leaders are at work in that country.
CHAPTER XLIXC.
The Year 1906—The Pogroms—Emigration—Conder and his Activities—An Emigration Conference—The Eighth Congress—The Question of the Headquarters.
The year 1906 was one of the ans terribles in the annals of Jewish history. It was a year of bloodshed and terror. Not even the dark ages extracted so heavy a toll of Jewish blood: something like 1400 pogroms took place all over the Ghetto. In many districts the Jewish population were completely exterminated. The number of persons directly affected, that is to say of those whose houses, shops, or factories were the objects of attack and pillage, reached a total of some 200,000 to 250,000. To this number must be added that of the clerks, workmen, etc., indirectly affected by the destruction of factories and shops, which could not be ascertained. The casualty list was estimated at approximately 20,000 murdered and 100,000 injured. Public opinion was stirred up. Why had those Jews suffered; what sins had they committed? Their loyalty and steadfastness to Judaism, instead of winning respect and admiration for their faithfulness, had called down upon them a treatment so immeasurably atrocious that it outdistanced the conventional words of sorrow and suffering and tempted many thinking men to ask whether the vaunted tolerance of the twentieth century was anything but an extravagant dream. If other nations suffer, they afterwards get freedom and indemnity. If in 1860 the Christians in Syria had suffered, their suffering afterwards brought them an autonomy. But what of the Jews? Every day it becomes clearer that it is impossible to allow the Jews to remain a prey to revolution and counter-revolution, between which they are crushed just as the corn is ground between the upper and nether millstones. “Emigration, then.” But whither? The mass of Jewish emigrants, in spite of all Emigration Committees (which were established in America), resists dispersion; it holds together like a swarm of bees. In New York and elsewhere gigantic Jewish cities have sprung up that have become a menace to the safety of the present inhabitants and therefore to the possibility of further Jewish immigration. Attempts made to substitute agricultural colonies at an enormous expense by philanthropists have met with failure everywhere except in Palestine, where it seems that at last an effective form of organization has been discovered. There alone the immigrant Jew finds himself at ease in language and customs, and to that land he brings the indescribable imperishable feeling of home that elsewhere comes to him but slowly and gradually.
Palestine is not far from Russia and Roumania, and is unquestionably so adapted for cultivation that as soon as the soil has been prepared the main stream of present emigration can be directed thither. And, further, it is the connecting link between the three great human divisions of the earth, while its commercial future promises to be of the brightest. It is therefore natural that the Jews, longing to possess the land of their fathers, should be encouraged to immigrate both on political and industrial grounds.
This great and powerful problem has roused English public opinion, but the Zionist propaganda has made considerable progress since 1900. One of the foremost English authorities who supported a Zionist solution of the Jewish problem was Colonel Claude Reignier Conder, to whom we have referred several times in this book. Some space must be devoted to a brief reference to the activities of this wonderful man in connection with Palestine.
Colonel Conder’s name will always be associated with the exploration of Palestine and with the history of Christian sympathy in this country for the colonization of Palestine by the Jewish people. No other person has ever done as much as he for the correct interpretation of the Bible with reference to Palestine. He was born on December 29, 1848, and was trained for the Royal Engineers. He was associated, almost from its creation, with the Palestine Exploration Fund, which was founded in 1865. He was only twenty-six when, as a Lieutenant, he went out to join in the survey of Western Palestine. He returned to England in September, 1875, having surveyed 4700 square miles. He brought with him a mass of notes, special surveys, observations and drawings, which formed the bulk of the material for a work which may be said to have become historical: Tent Work in Palestine. It is a book which even now well repays perusal, if only for the light it throws upon the geography and topography of Palestine, and the many incidents and experiences it records. The remaining 1300 square miles of the survey were finished by Lieutenant (later Lord) Kitchener in 1877. The scientific results of the work occupied some twenty-six memoirs, one to every sheet of the map. The whole of Western Palestine was mapped out on a scale which showed every ruin and waterway, every road, forest and hillock. More than a hundred and fifty biblical sites were ascertained and from these the boundaries of the tribes were worked out and the routes taken by the invading armies traced. The other books and memoirs on Palestine which Conder published form a library in themselves. In addition to the one already mentioned, there are Heth and Moab and Memoirs of the Survey of Western Palestine in 1883. This was followed in 1890 by Memoirs of the Survey of Eastern Palestine, The Bible in the East in 1896, The Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem in 1897, The Hittites and their Language in 1898. Besides these must be mentioned his Handbook to the Bible (1879), Primer of Bible Geography (1884), and Palestine (1891), which contained in one small volume a handy summary of all that was known of the geography of the country up to date. His last work, published only a year before he died, was on the City of Jerusalem. Special notice is also due to his Judas Maccabeus and The Jewish Tragedy, in which he deals with Jewish history from a national point of view.
Conder pointed out that Zionists are the natural leaders to whom the destitute and oppressed Jews turn for counsel and guidance, that “emigration has not settled the eternal question,” and that “a nation without a country must be content with toleration as all that it can expect.” He, too, sees the only solution in Palestine, and declares that Englishmen should be “only too glad to see Palestine increasing in civilization and prosperity as an outpost in the neighbourhood of Egypt.” (See Appendix LXXXV.)
The Zionist Organization called, in 1906, mainly under the pressure of the pogroms, a conference of representatives of Jewish organizations at Brussels, to discuss the question of emigration, particularly to the East. A number of organizations—including the Anglo-Jewish Association—sent their delegates; others, probably in consequence of their anti-Zionist tendencies, declined. Resolutions in favour of investigating the condition of the emigration to the East were accepted, and a committee was elected; but nothing practical resulted from these efforts, except a little “rapprochement” between Zionism and the “Hilfsverein” which, however, in consequence of deep differences of principle, was only superficial and of a short duration.
The work of the Zionist Organization, without losing sight of the political aspect, devoted itself more and more to the work in Palestine. The Eighth Zionist Congress at the Hague, August, 1907, with Wolffsohn and Nordau as Presidents, was attended by a considerably increased number of delegates, and among them a number of English Zionist leaders. The report says about Zionism in England: “In England the devoted zeal of the Zionists has removed the difficulties which formerly existed. The Federation worked systematically and well, and the Movement has received a considerable impetus. The old and trusted workers co-operate with the younger spirits.”
The Ninth Zionist Congress at Hamburg, December, 1909, with Wolffsohn and Nordau again as Presidents, was well attended (about four hundred members—and for the first time in the history of the movement, delegates were in attendance from Turkey). The impression driven home with irresistible force was the sustained and unflagging interest of all present in the movement. Among the English delegates were: Dr. Gaster, Dr. Samuel Daiches, Mr. Joseph Cowen, Dr. Chaim Weizmann, Mr. L. J. Greenberg, Mr. Herbert Bentwich, Mr. Norman Bentwich, Dr. Fuchs, the Rev. J. K. Goldbloom, and Mr. Leon Simon.
The Congress found itself confronted with the problem of organization. Several delegates were of the opinion that the task of leadership was too difficult for a Small Actions Committee, consisting of three persons, and that the headquarters should be removed to a larger centre. This view was not influenced by any personal sympathies or antipathies: it was dictated by considerations of an important character. Others were opposed to any change. This was an internal fight which had to be fought out, as in any other democratic movement, with the weapons of reason and conviction, and it was fought out. This Congress could not radically solve the question and it was left to the next one to bring the solution.
Zionism, however, remained as strong as ever. The disputes, far from being symptoms of weakness, were symptoms of growing interest, devotion and enthusiasm for the common cause.